.50 sniper rifles?(in the US army and USMC particulary)

[Afro-European]

So i have read/heard some amazing stories about how it is "illegal" for a soldier to even shoot another human with the weapon-that they must say: "oh, i didnt mean to, i was aiming for his backpack"(just for technicality reasons).I have read/heard of how they can pierce tanks with depleted uranium rounds and everything inside the tank is sucked out the exit hole of the bullet, i have heard stories talking about how the bullets of these weapons can just fly near you and rip you limbs off, and i've heard about the bodies of men hit with one explode into gore.What caught my attention here is the .50 cal "can only be used on equipment".This thing became actually so prolific it was taught in basic in both the US Army and Marine Corps for several years.And John Kerry helped perpetuate this (myth?) in testifying before Congress in the 70's that "the only weapon we were given (on the swift boat) was a .50 cal,which was illegal to use against troops...which is a Geneva Convention violation..."
What is and what isn't true of these weapons?
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/80-3/Barret_M82.jpg

[Hollis]

So i have read/heard some amazing stories about how it is "illegal" for a soldier to even shoot another human with the weapon-that they must say: "oh, i didnt mean to, i was aiming for his backpack"(just for technicality reasons).I have read/heard of how they can pierce tanks with depleted uranium rounds and everything inside the tank is sucked out the exit hole of the bullet, i have heard stories talking about how the bullets of these weapons can just fly near you and rip you limbs off, and i've heard about the bodies of men hit with one explode into gore.What caught my attention here is the .50 cal "can only be used on equipment".This thing became actually so prolific it was taught in basic in both the US Army and Marine Corps for several years.And John Kerry helped perpetuate this (myth?) in testifying before Congress in the 70's that "the only weapon we were given (on the swift boat) was a .50 cal,which was illegal to use against troops...which is a Geneva Convention violation..."
What is and what isn't true of these weapons?
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/80-3/Barret_M82.jpg


Maybe do a search first. I think there are some major misunderstanding on your part.

[Nite]

I never have seen so many urban myths in one single post

[Fade]

If its illegal, better not tell Corporal Rob Furlong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Furlong)

p-)

[schwarz]

I never have seen so many urban myths in one single post


The tank one killed me.rofl


And to quote John Kerry of all people is beyond me.

[Afro-European]

Maybe do a search first. I think there are some major misunderstanding on your part.
I did som searches,which didn't help me further.Hence my question on soldiers on this board.

[Navor]

The tank one killed me.rofl


And to quote John Kerry of all people is beyond me.

In the Book Shooter the Author claimed to have done eactly this in Somalia 93

[Chulo]

I did som searches,which didn't help me further.Hence my question on soldiers on this board.No its not illegal to use a .50 weapon on a person.

[schwarz]

In the Book Shooter the Author claimed to have done eactly this in Somalia 93


Actually just finished that book and it said nothing about
I have read/heard of how they can pierce tanks with depleted uranium rounds and everything inside the tank is sucked out the exit hole of the bullet.

Can they shoot through some armor, yes. But sucking everything through the exit hole..lol.

[Navor]

In my Book (Chapter 1 ;page 8; second paragraph) it says :"The tanks (T-52) were next,any my boys took down every Skinny who tried to climb aboard them.In case anyone was already inside,I reloaded and put 3 bullets into the hulls where a gunner would be, the 3 more into the drivers position"

edit
Well the Part that anything inside will be sucked out through the whole seems or better must be a myth.
But it seems to be possible to penetrate the Armor with .50

[schwarz]

And yes possible to penetrate tanks.

[SOG]

So i have read/heard some amazing stories about how it is "illegal" for a soldier to even shoot another human with the weapon-that they must say: "oh, i didnt mean to, i was aiming for his backpack"(just for technicality reasons).I have read/heard of how they can pierce tanks with depleted uranium rounds and everything inside the tank is sucked out the exit hole of the bullet, i have heard stories talking about how the bullets of these weapons can just fly near you and rip you limbs off, and i've heard about the bodies of men hit with one explode into gore.What caught my attention here is the .50 cal "can only be used on equipment".This thing became actually so prolific it was taught in basic in both the US Army and Marine Corps for several years.And John Kerry helped perpetuate this (myth?) in testifying before Congress in the 70's that "the only weapon we were given (on the swift boat) was a .50 cal,which was illegal to use against troops...which is a Geneva Convention violation..."
What is and what isn't true of these weapons?
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/80-3/Barret_M82.jpg

.50's are mounted everywhere man. Tanks, Humvee's, static positions etc all used on personnel. Not to mention the .50 sniper rifles.

From a quick check on the internet: The last place I'd want to be:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1891550#1891581


The various conventions limiting what weapons are allowed is that the forbidden weapons are ones that:
1.Are deliberately designed to cripple, not kill
2.Have a high risk of harming civilians (land mines)
3.Are inherently uncontrollable (gas, germs)

The Geneva Conventions rarely deal with weapons themselves. They usually deal with rules of war and treatment of combatants/non-combatants.

The Hague Accords, which are different, deal with weapons and ammunition. So if you see someone mention that the Geneva Convention forbids the military use of hollowpoints (for instance), they should be referring to the Hague Accords.


It was US Army policy that crew served weapons were only to be used against vehicles and equipment, not personelle...but thats only because some bureaucratic bean counter in the pentagon did a cost/benefit analysis and determined that heavy caliber ammunition was too expensive to be 'wasted' on individual soldiers.

That directive has always been ignored, and was done away with.

The running joke among machine gunners was that they weren't shooting for the man, but at his uniform, canteen, and rucksack...which counted as equipment.

And more replies on that forum.

[deagle]

well, if enemy combatants hide behind equipment, a .50 could (in your terms) "technically" be used to get them.

[Hauser]

I believe under the Hague convention it states that it is forbidden to use exploding rounds of under a certain caliber (15mm or something like that) on personel. Therefore I believe it is against the Hague convention to use certain types of .50 on infantry, such as HEI and "flash" rounds.

I remember reading a book about British snipers in Iraq, and at one point they were helped out by an SAS sniper with a .50 cal. The SAS soldier made the point of saying that some of the rounds were not meant to be used on infantry (flash rounds i believe) but they did anyway.

[Doe]

).I have read/heard of how they can pierce tanks with depleted uranium rounds and everything inside the tank is sucked out the exit hole of the bullet,

No, yes wait. Hang on, you were actually serious with that one werent you!

[Mate]

I believe under the Hague convention it states that it is forbidden to use exploding rounds of under a certain caliber (15mm or something like that) on personel. Therefore I believe it is against the Hague convention to use certain types of .50 on infantry, such as HEI and "flash" rounds.


Oh,well in Kosovo they used any kind of rounds against personnell such as 22 mm,30 mm...someone i knew died from these 30 mm round in a open field not fortified position....the impact was horrible body parts scatered all over the field.
I didn`t knew that were restrictions in use of certain ammunition against personnel.

[Afro-European]

No, yes wait. Hang on, you were actually serious with that one werent you!
Huh :fork:.I said i read/heard about that.I don't know if it's true.

[Afro-European]

Yo SOG thanx for the link/reply.I'm enlightened now.

[schwarz]

Huh :fork:.I said i read/heard about that.I don't know if it's true.


It's not, find a new source for information.


And don't quote Lurch.p-)

[Afro-European]

It's not, find a new source for information.

I would much appreciate it if you give me a reliable one

Anddon't quote Lurch
Who/what the *** is Lurch?

[schwarz]

I would much appreciate it if you give me a reliable one

Who/what the *** is Lurch?

Are you a member here (http://forums.militaryspot.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/746104564/m/9281073771) too?

Honestly most of these myths can be answered with a little common sense. Sorry I cannot point you in the direction of a site that can answer all of your questions.

[Hauser]

Another rumor I heard for why this myth started is that there was a shortage of .50 ammunition for a period during the Vietnam war, so soldiers were told that it was only to be used on equipment, and personel should only be engaged with 7.62/5.56.

Regardless, even if it was stated in the Hague convention that .50 cal was illegal, it wouldnt really matter, as aren't the USA not a signatory to the Hague and Genva conventions anyway? They just abide by the rules out of "politeness" for lack of a better term.

[Mordoror]

I believe under the Hague convention it states that it is forbidden to use exploding rounds of under a certain caliber (15mm or something like that) on personel. Therefore I believe it is against the Hague convention to use certain types of .50 on infantry, such as HEI and "flash" rounds.


certainly not as modern IFV have HE rounds form 20/25/30/40 mm to kills ennemy infantery

not to speak about artillery (does a 300 mm HE round from a smerch MLRS count rofl)

In fact a .50 caliber round is less usceptible to be forbidden against infantery because it kills almost everytime it hits (even on non vital areas by massive hemorragy and hydrostatic shock) and such on the instant

as said above, what is forbidden is something that inflict unuseful pain to a human

for that some kind of infantery rounds ("dum-dum", expansive points ....etc) as well as some infantery weapons (WWII pinapple style handgrenades, flamethrowers) or collectives weapons (napalm) are restricted or forbidden

Off course industry knows how to deal with such agreements
For example, napalm was forbidden but they modified the chemical composition of the mix and as such the new version did not entered in the restriction text but was still as efficient as the old mix

[Hauser]

certainly not as modern IFV have HE rounds form 20/25/30/40 mm to kills ennemy infantery

not to speak about artillery (does a 300 mm HE round from a smerch MLRS count rofl)

WTF, read my post idiot. I said the rule was only for rounds under a certain caliber which i believed to be 15mm. With my high quality education I am able to discern that 20mm is larger than 15mm so the rule dosent apply. If you require a more detailed explanation of how 20 is larger than 15, feel free to ask and i will provide one with the use of pebbles or beans.

[Hollis]

Let's keep it civil.......................

[Hauser]

Let's keep it civil.......................
Appologies, lack of sleep has made me cranky


for that some kind of infantery rounds ("dum-dum", expansive points ....etc) as well as some infantery weapons (WWII pinapple style handgrenades, flamethrowers) or collectives weapons (napalm) are restricted or forbidden
Just wondering why pineapple style grenades would be forbidden? These make larger fragments than current fragementation grenades (particularly those that use pre notched wire) so I would have thought they would be easier to find and treat.

[playtym]

I believe under the Hague convention it states that it is forbidden to use exploding rounds of under a certain caliber (15mm or something like that) on personel. Therefore I believe it is against the Hague convention to use certain types of .50 on infantry, such as HEI and "flash" rounds.

I remember reading a book about British snipers in Iraq, and at one point they were helped out by an SAS sniper with a .50 cal. The SAS soldier made the point of saying that some of the rounds were not meant to be used on infantry (flash rounds i believe) but they did anyway.


There's no mention of any calibre in the declaration (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm), only that bullets that flatten or expand easily are prohibited.
Interestingly, as soon as a nation that is not a signatory to this declaration joins a conflict between two signatories, all bets are off.


Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,
Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/decpeter.htm),
Declare as follows:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.
The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.
The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.
A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.
The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.
This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.
In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.
Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.

[Mordoror]

@Hauser

My mistake, i read above 15 mm and not under 15 mm

however, as Hollis said, you should learn to keep it civil...moreover given you high quality education :bash:

[Mordoror]

OK let's forget the "incident"

concerning the pinapple grenades AFAIK not more western countries use them (but they are still in use in the russian arsenal)
What i understood of the explanation is that their prefragmented wrap made the fragments more sharp and being very small (like shards) on the contrary of artillery fragments, they are very difficult to remove chirurgically ....

concerning the actual fragmentation grenades many use tiny metallic balls wich are homogenous in their form and are so less "destructive" (if it can be said) to the affected tissues and easier to retrieve that barbed fragments obtained with the pinapple grenades.

[Hauser]

Interestingly, as soon as a nation that is not a signatory to this declaration joins a conflict between two signatories, all bets are off.

I would assume that insurgent combatants in Afgansitan would not be signatories to the Hagues convention, which implies that technically it would be leagal to use JHP ammunition in that theatre.

[playtym]

I would assume that insurgent combatants in Afgansitan would not be signatories to the Hagues convention, which implies that technically it would be leagal to use JHP ammunition in that theatre.

Yes, as I read the convention, it only covers the use of such ammunition during a war between two or more signatories. As soon as a non-signatory joins the conflict it no longer applies, and would not apply at all to a conflict between two or more non-signatories.

[Tony Williams]

To sum up and clarify:

There are two different types of restrictions on anti-personnel ammunition:

St Petersburg Declaration 1868: bans HE or incendiary projectiles weighing less than 400 grams (14 oz, or just under one pound), since it was felt inhumane to use explosive bullets against people. This was widely ignored in WW1 as HEI bullets were developed for us against spotting balloons and airships, and subsequently aircraft. After that war, it was tacitly agreed that it was OK to use such bullets by or against aircraft (and subsequently against other vehicles), but the ban technically still remains in place for anti-personnel use.

Hague Conventions 1899 and 1907: ban bullets designed to cause unnecessary suffering, and specifically any designed to expand. These remain in force.

Technically, such bans don't apply to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as they only hold between nations which signed these agreements, but the USA along with every other army adheres to them anyway.

The International Red Cross protested in the late 1990s about the use of the Nammo Raufoss NM140 Multipurpose SAPHEI .50 cal bullets (used by US forces as the Mk 211), since the .50 BMG is used as an anti-personnel weapon and these bullets clearly infringe the St Petersburg agreement. It took some elaborate testing to convince them that the HEI contents would not be triggered by passing through a person, they had to hit something harder.

The .50 SLAP tungsten-cored (not DU) APDS ammo is the best penetrator available in that calibre, and it can penetrate up to 40mm of armour plate at short range. That's unlikely to bother any but the lightest tanks.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Hauser]

St Petersburg Declaration 1868: bans HE or incendiary projectiles weighing less than 400 grams (14 oz, or just under one pound), since it was felt inhumane to use explosive bullets against people. This was widely ignored in WW1 as HEI bullets were developed for us against spotting balloons and airships, and subsequently aircraft. After that war, it was tacitly agreed that it was OK to use such bullets by or against aircraft (and subsequently against other vehicles), but the ban technically still remains in place for anti-personnel use.

Thanks for the info, very informative. I would imageine that the St Petersburg Declaration is broken on a regular basis, as even the GAU-8 HEI only weighs 12 oz or so.

[KBar666]

I know this isn't the place for it,but do u guys hav any pics of Snipers with .50 Cals,if so could you post them or send my way please?

[winchester_down]

I know this isn't the place for it,but do u guys hav any pics of Snipers with .50 Cals,if so could you post them or send my way please?

use the search button or google dude

[Tony Williams]

3) The main principles under the above instruments which restrict the use of .50 calibre ammunition (and the conduct of warfare generally) are necessity, proportionality, humanity and distinction. [/FONT]

4).50 calibre ammunition is not legally employable against personnel because its use is not considered ‘proportional’ when used exclusively against personnel. However, law, and international law in particular, is full of grey areas. Thus, .50 calibre rounds are legally employable against ‘material’ and the equipment a soldier is wearing, under a broad interpretations of ‘material’, can legally be targeted. This is just one instance of the ‘legal manoeuvring’ used to overcome the laws of conflict. The other issue is that what is ‘proportional’ is always a function of the circumstances. If a soldier fires at you with a .50 Calibre weapon, then you can legally return that fire. But if a soldier fires a rubber bullet at you, it is illegal to reply with a 120mm tank round (for example), because this would be disproportionate.

There is nothing, written in any law, which bans the use of firearms of any particular calibre against people: the laws only affect the type of bullets.

What you are describing reads to me like a lawyer's opinion or interpretation of the law, of which no-one involved in a conflict takes any notice, nor is at any risk of being criticised for. If a sniper tries to kill a tank commander, and the tank commander lobs a 120mm shell right back at him, that is scarcely 'proportional' - but it happens all the time, and I've never read of anyone being criticised for it (unless the shell kills innocent bystanders, of course - but that's a different matter).

The US Judge Advocate General's staff are very particular about adherence to the laws of war (one of their officers temporarily banned the use of open-tip sniper bullets a few years ago, for fear that they might expand), but US (as well as many other) forces use .50 cal sniper rifles with no problem.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Tony Williams]

Lawyer's opinions are usually a good place to start on legal issues....

For every lawyer expressing an opinion (as opposed to citing case law), there'll be one who who takes a diametrically opposed view...that's how they get rich.

[Hollis]

For every lawyer expressing an opinion (as opposed to citing case law), there'll be one who who takes a diametrically opposed view...that's how they get rich.


Quoted for truth.

[Hollis]

You'll never find a lawyer expressing an opinion without citing case law. However a case is only relevant to the facts on which it was decided, and subsequent facts can always be distinguished from those of the original case. Lawyer's get rich (the minority) because people are unwilling/unable to solve their problems on their own, but more than willing to pay a lawyer to argue on their behalf.


How about getting back on topic. We do have some legal beagles as members. Unless a court makes a ruling (renders a opinion) on the matter, it is just another Legal opinion.

[Marshall_Nord]

We were always told, if asked, that we were trying to disable the soldier’s personal weapon, LBE, helmet, etc. rofl

[Hollis]

Unless it is a ruling of the SUPREME COURT then even the judgments of the lower courts are really just 'legal opinions' which are open to appeal.

I'm all for getting back on topic, but you can't really have a discussion about the legality of something without knowledge of the underlying principles... Cheers


Rex, I am not a lawyer, I have take some classes in law. If our resident Lawyers want to go at it, that is one thing. If your a Lawyer, than have at it.

BTW, Supreme court renders a opinion too, it also may not be the last court to hear the case, the case could end way before then.

I think this thread was asking for a lot from someone who is very clueless about firearms, nomenclature, ballistics, ect.

Just because a person uses a firearm to snipe, that does not make that person a "Sniper" or the firearm as "snipers firearm" in accepted military terminology. The media may throw that term out there for what ever reason.

There are actual practical reasons for limiting one rifle over another rather than legal considerations. To adequately discuss those reason would require participating parties to have a solid bases in firearms, ballistics, military usage, etc.

BTW, Tony knows what he is talking about.

[Tony Williams]

You'll never find a lawyer expressing an opinion without citing case law.

I'd be interested to know of any case law concerning soldiers charged with the crime of shooting an enemy with a .50 cal gun.

If there is no such case law, I take it from your post that no lawyer would express an opinion that such an act is illegal?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[hank]

I am a lawyer and its my legal opinion that this thread is solid mufuggin gold. Nice work all the way around.

hank

[Tony Williams]

I'm not sure whether there is case law specifically relating to the use of .50 caliber rounds (though I wouldn't be at all surprised given its prevalence).

In you original post, you said: ".50 calibre ammunition is not legally employable against personnel because its use is not considered ‘proportional’ when used exclusively against personnel."

You presumably had some basis for that statement? Who says it isn't legally employable? Who says it isn't proportional? Where's the evidence?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Tony Williams]

Rex, I am well aware that the belief that using .50 cal guns against personnel is illegal, is widespread in the US Army. It keeps cropping up on this board and others. So I'm not surprised that some people you talk to think that - it's inevitable. That doesn't make it correct. And I've been querying it for years, only to find that no-one (including yourself) is able to point to anything in terms of written law, an official legal statement, or any case law to justify it.

I will grant that you have at least pointed to what you believe is a justification in the law (I think you are the first person to do that). But there are some major flaws in it. You say: "the use of .50 cal ammunition against personnel will be 'disproportionate' (and illegal under the Geneva Conventions) where the military objective of incapacitating that individual could be achieved with a smaller round."

First of all, that is a highly dubious interpretation of the "proportionality" statement. It really is quite absurd, when troops routinely call in mortar and artillery fire and even air support to deal with enemy personnel, to argue that the calibre of a rifle or machine gun is a legal issue. I will not accept, without supporting evidence (i.e. a formal legal judgement) that this a valid interpretation.

Secondly, even if it were true there is a gaping hole in it. For a sniper or a machine gunner using a .50 cal weapon, that weapon will be the only thing they have in their hands to engage personnel in the brief instants in which targets show themselves. Therefore they will never have the opportunity to use a "smaller round". Therefore they have a permanent, cast-iron defence against such a charge.

You say that laws and adherence to the laws are two different things. There is also a third factor: enforcement of the laws. I have never heard (and neither, it seems, have you) of any attempt, ever, to bring charges against a soldier in any army for using a .50 cal weapon against enemy personnel.

So to sum up we seem to have the following:

1. No written law specifically banning the use of weapons of any particular calibre against personnel.

2. No formal legal judgment that the use of .50 cal against personnel is illegal.

3. No case law of anyone beng charged with such an offence.

No written law + no legal judgment + no case law = no problem.

I rest my case...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Sloppy Joe2]

i apoligize for i am drunk and coulnt read through every post, but U.S Soldiers are briefed that you can use the most avaible weapon system to respond to a threat say even if it is a crazy ****ing dog and you are in the best position to respond with a TOW. you are legally able to do so.

[zonk]

i apoligize for i am drunk and coulnt read through every post, but U.S Soldiers are briefed that you can use the most avaible weapon system to respond to a threat say even if it is a crazy ****ing dog and you are in the best position to respond with a TOW. you are legally able to do so.


that's what I have always been briefed. If you have it use it, but make sure to use the smallest weapon available. as audie said if you have a m4, a m240b and a mark 19, you don't just go straight for the mark 19 and start laying waste, you take the m4 and do what has to be done...unless the dog fires back with a mpmg and then it's game on

[Jippo]

The whole proportional thing sound like U.S. thing. Only way I was ever taught was to hit with everything I've got, regardless what the other guy has. But then again I never trained for asymmetrical conflict.

But the discussed conventions also talk about conventional war, asymmetrical warfighting.

[Hollis]

I feel like a criminal now, I have guilt, we called in 8 inch guns on Charlie. It not only killed him, but it killed him dead and in pieces. Oh yeah and his buddies too.

[oldsoak]

I feel like a criminal now, I have guilt, we called in 8 inch guns on Charlie. It not only killed him, but it killed him dead and in pieces. Oh yeah and his buddies too.

- ah, but it wasnt .50 cal was it ? :-P

we're getting onto angels on pinheads here - its a calibre used in a weapon whose design, intent, purpose and accepted usage is to destroy men and materiel.

If questioned, tell 'em that the round designed to pass through a human being without hurting them is under intensive field trials but the results are unpromising. :-P

[Johnny_H02]

It doesn't really matter what weapon you use against any target, as long as you blouse your boots (it looks more professional) ;).

[zonk]

I feel like a criminal now, I have guilt, we called in 8 inch guns on Charlie. It not only killed him, but it killed him dead and in pieces. Oh yeah and his buddies too.


no need to feel guilt, it's either us or them. i would use whatever necessary if i happen to find myself in that situation one day. knock on wood i haven't but how many times can you throw your cards in the deck before it gets pulled?

[Tony Williams]

I need to come back on a couple of points you raised in your last post, Rex:



You are correct that there is no specific prohibition banning the use of .50 cal, but that is not the same as saying that its use in certain instances (or that of any weapons system), will not violate the Principles regulating the conduct of warfare and therefore be illegal under international law.
Of course - if you are shooting prisoners, that use of weapons is illegal. But the calibre doesn't matter.


So, IF you had other weapons AVAILABLE of a smaller caliber, and it was NOT NECESSARY to use .50 cal (ie because it was not the only weapon you had available and the smaller caliber rounds would sufficiently incapacitate the enemy), then its use, strictly speaking would be illegal.

To take your interpretation of the principle to its logical conclusion:

- if you had a rifle available capable of doing the job, it would be illegal to use a machine gun;

- if you had a 5.56mm rifle available, it would be illegal to use a 7.62mm one;

- if you had a pistol available and the range was short, it would be illegal to use any rifle;

- and if one shot was capable of disabling the enemy, it would be illegal to shoot twice.

It is evident that no army agrees with your interpretation of the proportionality principle, or teaches it to their troops, let alone makes any attempt to enforce it. That's hardly surprising since, however much sense it might seem to make to a lawyer sitting on the sidelines, it is simply absurd in military terms.

I think that we can safely conclude that our soldiers can carry on using .50 cal weapons against personnel without any legal concerns.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Tony Williams]

I wasn't taking the logic to an extreme in the way that you have. I was merely pointing out that if the calibre of an infantry firearm is taken as a legal issue, then wherever you choose to draw the line is arbitrary. You can't say that there's a whole legal difference between .50 and 7.62mm and then claim there's no such difference between 7.62mm and a 9mm pistol round (muzzle energy of the .50 is about 5x that of the 7.62mm, which is in turn 6x that of the 9mm). So if you have a legal distinction between when you can or can't shoot someone with a .50 compared with a 7.62mm, you can't then say that no such difference applies to the 7.62mm vs 9mm comparison, where there is an even bigger difference in weapon energy. You can't have it both ways.

And of course I wasn't talking about shooting wounded people - just the common military practice of "double taps" - firing twice in quick succession at each target.

In reality, the 'proportionality' principle applies to much larger-scale issues. For instance, if a sniper is observed firing from a village, it would be disproportionate, and therefore illegal, to flatten the whole village regardless of civilian casualties. On the other hand, if you received sniper fire and discovered it was coming from a concealed enemy unit, it would of course be entirely appropriate to call down an air strike to wipe out the entire unit with a few tons of HE. Disproportionate? Not in military terms - just SOP.

Fretting about small-arms calibres is frankly laughable in the context of the realities of warfare.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Jippo]

Your examples at the bottom again fail to adequately address the notion of necessity. They can also be distinguished on the basis that there is a big difference between getting hit with either a 5.56mm/7.62mm/pistol round and a .50 cal round.

But there is no difference at least from the legal point of view.

Treaties ban using explosive/expanding rounds on small calibers (.50 included) because they have too little bunch to rip a person into pieces and would cause very difficult wounds. There is no rule against using anything bigger to kill the enemy. It is a perfectly legal thing to shoot a person with .50 or tank main gun. 125mm of hot HE to a head from a weapon designed to kill material is a very humane way to go.


If you think there is a law, I'm sure you can actually find it?

[loganinkosovo]

Infantry? Isn't that what Beehive and Canister is for???

[loganinkosovo]

The tank one killed me.rofl


And to quote John Kerry of all people is beyond me.

I'm not surprised. So much crap is pumped out by the Anti-War Anti-America Left most non-military don't have a clue how things work. A lot of the Anti-DU experts on the Left don't even have a clue how DU works and refuse to accept the reality that DU doesn't "Contaminate" anyone and everyone who comes within 5 miles of it.

Hell, even people who are walking around with DU fragments in them aren't badly effected by it.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1569622

The tank one obviously got .50 cal and 105mm or 120mm APDS mixed up.

And I'm with you on the veracity anything that Sen. Kreepy says about anything.

[Jippo]

OK, last post. For the umpteenth time, there IS a law. It is called the Geneva Conventions. And again, don't take my word for it, go to the link I gave in the first post and read about it for yourselves.

I've read it many a time, I've been tought it in army too. To me it seems you do not understand it, even though you might have read it yourself.

Find the § which has the things you described.

[Jippo]

Btw, before you go on a reading rampage trying to prove yourself, check this out:

"The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns.

They chiefly concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war. They do not affect the use of weapons in war, which are covered by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Protocol on the use of gas and biological weapons of 1925."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

If you want to check out Hague conventions (yes, I've read them too), they're here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

Have fun. :)

[Hollis]

OK, last post. For the umpteenth time, there IS a law. It is called the Geneva Conventions. And again, don't take my word for it, go to the link I gave in the first post and read about it for yourselves.


Rex are you a lawyer? We discussed the opinion part and what constitutes a valid opinion, yet you seem to belabor this issue. IMHO, your coming across as a seagoing lawyer.

I am sure the DOD legal team share a different opinion than you. This forum is not a court. While you may consider your opinion supreme over all other, clearer than clean air, it is still your opinion and in the world your opinion and other members of this forum is just electronic messages back and forth.

Ma Deuce is not going away, she will still send tangos to where ever their after life will be so until a real authority rules on this issue, it is purely academic at best to massive bloviating here.


BTW seagoing lawyers are a pariah in the Military. (this is a military orientated forum)

[11 Bravo]

Funny how legal bunk creeps into this topic. In this day of war with terrorists that routinely take no prisoners...that is also including those that fall into their hands alive where they tortue to death ...you know beheading and the like. So in all reality why would ANYONE want to accord such human debris a break is way beyond me.
dirka dirka muhammed jihad.

[Jippo]

As a student you should know that if you make an argument, you should be make your case hold water and prove it.

"It is so"-argument will never be enough in the real world. Nor will refering to other peoples opinions. What comes to instructors, they do talk a load of bull sometimes. I should know.

[Jippo]

Rex, you have not provided anything to back up this statement of yours:

"I agree that this is far from a satisfactory answer, but unless you want me to start trolling the legal databases, the short answer is this- keeping in mind that I said that what is 'proportional' is context specific, everything being equal, the use of .50 cal ammunition against personnel will be 'disproportionate' (and illegal under the Geneva Conventions) where the military objective of incapacitating that individual could be achieved with a smaller round. "

Geneva Conventions do not limit the use of military firearms against military targets in any way. It is not applicable! At least you could refer to correct conventions as your "proof".

Hague is applicable, but even that does not limit the use rifle caliber ball or AP ammunition (which is what .50 mostly spit).

Laws do regulate all aspects of land war, but they do not limit the use of different weapon systems on military targets in 99.5% of the cases. And .50 caliber is not part of that 0,5%.

Get it? If not, you better go and find the specific paragraph and point which says otherwise and stop with the lawyer BS.

[Buckeye67]

Well, as far as having my arguments 'hold water', I haven't been making any valid arguments, just spouting out bullcrap. All I've received in return is 'prove it, prove it, prove it' and I've consistently referred people to the relevant legal instruments which don't support my ridiculous assertions at all. If you want to reply to my 'argument' then please be patient because no matter what you say, I'm simply going to regurgitate the same crap I have repeatedly. I don't really have a point - other than to hear myself talk, and such gratuitous idiocy should be illegal. Responding with "yeah, well you haven't shown anything in any of the conventions or provided any case law supporting my tripe" is completely irrelevant to my method of posting. Right from the beginning I acknowledged that I am a knob who will argue that it is night when it is clearly day, and everyone seems to recognize this except me.

There is no room for argument - I am a huge tool and will continue to split hairs, dodge valid points, and spew my own particular brand of bull**** until either the thread gets locked or I get banned, or both.

Fixed. Stop posting already.

[Hollis]

Well, as far as having my arguments 'hold water', I haven't been making any arguments, just pointing out facts. All I've received in return is 'prove it, prove it, prove it' and I've consistently referred people to the relevant legal instruments. If you want to reply to my 'argument' then please explain how the principles regulating warfare do not apply to .50 cal rounds. That is my only point- that they apply, and if they are breached it will be illegal. Responding with 'yeah, well that isn't how it works on the battlefield/in the real world' is completely irrelevant to the existence of the law. Right from the beginning I acknowledged that the existence of a law and its application are two different things, but nobody seems willing to recognize this.

There is no room for argument- these principles regulate the conduct of warfare, including the use of weapons such as the .50 cal. Period. Whether they are applied, whether they are breached in a given instance etc etc are all separate issues which will obviously be open to debate on the facts.


Why don't you open a thread in the politcal rant section of this forum. If you want to belabor this point any more.


BTW, I would advise you not to tell me to chill or cool down, that will definately have the opposite effect on me.

This section is on Equipment and gear, not for discussion of various legal opinions.